> Please explain how a web designer making $250k a year freelancing out of an apartment in NYC is "benefiting" from the government more than a $30k/year individ

> Please explain how a web designer making $250k a year freelancing out of an apartment in NYC is "benefiting" from the government more than a $30k/year individual on welfare. Oh come on, this is ridiculous. You know this is not true given US as it is. It may be true of a social democracy in Europe, but this is just not true of the US. The wealthy web designer in NYC benefits from police protection, public transport he can take everywhere, subsidies and grants his university (whether public or private) has received, the use of eminent domain to build said transport, the use of eminent domain to turn over land to a real estate developer that built his apartment building, and (most obviously!) the Internet (once called ArpaNet) from which he makes his living. After tax, the web designer has far more left over and suffers less anxiety as he isn't living paycheck to paycheck (unless he so wishes). I don't know New York geography as well, so I'll switch to Bay Area to discuss the $30k/year individual (who, by the way, is not eligible for welfare). First, they likely can't even reside close to an area with public transport and jobs, so they're commuting two hours from, e.g., Stockton or Modesto (having to pay for vehicle maintenance, car insurance, license and registration fees themselves). Yes, they do benefit from the freeways, but the stress involved in driving on the freeway (high traffic, long commute, high risk of accidents) is far greater than the stress involved in taking the New York Metro. They're far more likely to have an unpleasant experience with police personally (being pulled over, searched, etc...). Their city police forces are also reluctant to pursue anything other than violent crime. After tax, a far higher percentage of their income goes to meet the basic needs, and it usually does not -- they're underinsured, they suffer from obesity (due to eating cheaper, poor quality food: fast food joints and microwaveable mac-n-cheese, etc...), and overall poor health. I have a lot of sympathy with libertarian views (I voted for Gary Johnson as a protest vote in 2012 elections, actually), but their sympathies are simply misplaced: argue for less welfare for the upper classes (e.g., mandate that new public transportation must cover the poor communities first, oppose use of eminent domain by real estate developers), lower taxes for the poor, higher long term capital gains in place of higher income tax (with some reasonable limitations as not to stunt economic growth), etc... The wealthy do not mind high income taxes. Simply put, look at their voting patterns: 75% of them vote for Democrats, 25% of them vote for Giuliani/Schwarzenegger Republicans. Neither are "small government" advocates. If they did want lower taxes, they'd immediately have the government's ear: e.g., this is why capital gains remains low. Sad fact is the government listens to wealthy more so than to the poor. This is why some "progressive" policies (that mostly benefit the wealthy) get implemented quickly and others (that mostly benefit the less well-of) linger. You can argue that in a theoretical society Internet could be built by free enterprise, cities could be built without eminent domain, etc... but we don't live in this society now. Right now, if you're concerned about government handouts, go after people like me instead of your hypothetical "$30k/year individual on welfare".